Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
It's been my limited experience that when someone mentions the "nature" of something, they're presenting a postulate as a demonstrated conclusion. The most flagrant use of this is in "human nature", where all sorts of things are suggested to just sort of be a part of the human condition. I once was told that zoophilia is human nature. Only if humans are animals, I think I responded.
|
Will, it is a demonstrated conclusion. It's part of the definition of organized conflict, whether that on a battlefield or (to a lesser extent) playing field. So nice strawman.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
In this case, I feel like we're speaking in generalities so generally general that we're losing track of the subject. First, we're obviously talking about violent conflict. Second, violent conflict can be determined to be immoral or moral; it's not somehow all inherently amoral. In the very specific case we're talking about, Anwar al Awlaki, a cleric with some influence especially among moderate Muslims, has called for the murders of people regardless of whether they're innocent or not. Which is obviously crazy (ducks as The_Shoe is thrown).
|
Violent conflict can only be amoral. Morality (or lack thereof) is only possible with perspective. You need to know The Story Behind The Conflict in order to draw a moral conclusion. If I point you to a war between any two Greek citystates c. 500 BC, the only way you'd ever be able to draw any moral conclusion about it is by reading the history surrounding it. Until you know that history, the war itself is completely immoral.
But the point is that wishing harm on your enemies is a pretty basic part of organized conflict i.e. war. That's the whole reason for being there in the first place. So MY question is why has he, as someone who's very familiar with America and Americans, decided that we're ALL the enemy? There's nothing crazy about that at all. He's simply expanded his definition of "evildoers".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
but generally the murder of people who have not wronged you is judged to be immoral.
|
Except in war. Soldiers, as a rule are young men. In a war, they're standing across a battlefield from another young man that they've never met. And these two young men are going to try to kill each other. Sgt. Alvin York did that better than any other American in WW I, and if you tried to say he was crazy, there are a lot of people that will laugh in your face.
Soldiering isn't crazy. It's a part of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ring
Jazz, I also want to you to respond to this:
"other highly respected folks that have done exactly the same thing without the same stigma."
I ask you, who exactly is highly respecting these stigma free perpetrators?
Moldy ancient sixth grade social studies textbooks from 1967?
|
You've got your head shoved so far up your own worldview that I'm surprised you can see your keyboard. Simply because you don't respect anyone doesn't mean everyone else has to kowtow to your opinion. So how about Hirohito, the late Emporer of Japan? Go find your favorite Japanese citizen and see what they think. There are millions of Russians that respect Stalin. Ask Turks how they feel about Ataturk - just don't do it in Turkey or you'll likely be arrested.
There are 3 people that I don't respect that did this yet somehow garner the respect of millions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Language used to describe enemies (whether they are the Huns, the Mongols, the Nazis, etc.) has never been very nuanced. This is purposefully done. Shades of grey just confuse the issue and make it harder to achieve victory.
|
Exactly. That's why I object to people automatically assuming mental illness when discussing Alwaki. Maybe he is; I don't know. But neither do they, and honestly, it's just the flip side of the same coin that Alwaki's spending. We're all evil, so he must be crazy.